1 Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Characteristic Category Count Percentage
Gender
Gender Female 51 40.8%
Gender Male 74 59.2%
Academic Level
Academic Level Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate 14 11.2%
Academic Level Masters 89 71.2%
Academic Level PhD 22 17.6%
Time Lived in Kitchener/Waterloo
Time Lived in KW Less than 6 months 9 7.2%
Time Lived in KW 6–12 months 49 39.2%
Time Lived in KW 1–2 years 49 39.2%
Time Lived in KW Over 2 years 18 14.4%
Age Range
Age Range 18–21 11 8.8%
Age Range 22–25 64 51.2%
Age Range 26–30 34 27.2%
Age Range Over 31 16 12.8%
Table 2. Regional Distribution of Respondents
Region Count Percentage
Africa 57 45.6%
Asia 42 33.6%
Europe 19 15.2%
North America 5 4.0%
Oceania 2 1.6%

Gender: 59.2% male (74 respondents), 40.8% female (51 respondents).

Academic Level: 71.2% pursuing a Master’s degree (89 respondents), 17.6% PhD (22 respondents), and 11.2% Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate (14 respondents).

Time Lived in Kitchener/Waterloo: 39.2% have lived there for 6–12 months (49 respondents) or 1–2 years (49 respondents), 14.4% over 2 years (18 respondents), and 7.2% less than 6 months (9 respondents).

Age Range: 51.2% aged 22–25 (64 respondents), 27.2% aged 26–30 (34 respondents), 12.8% over 31 (16 respondents), and 8.8% aged 18–21 (11 respondents).

Regional Distribution: 45.6% from Africa (57 respondents), 33.6% from Asia (42 respondents), 15.2% from Europe (19 respondents), 4.0% from North America (5 respondents), and 1.6% from Oceania (2 respondents).

1.1 Objective 1: Financial Strategies & RQ1: Housing Experiences

Identify various means of securing and maintaining affordable housing units in Waterloo/Kitchener by international graduate students, including the financial mechanisms they use to navigate housing challenges.

  1. RQ1. What are the housing experiences of international graduate students in Kitchener/Waterloo?

1.2 Housing Experiences (RQ1)

1.2.1 Housing Stability and Mobility Patterns

Table 1: Housing Stability and Mobility Overview (N = 125)
Category Status Count Percentage (%)
Housing Stability
Housing Stability Stable Housing 74 59.2
Housing Stability Unstable Housing 48 38.4
Housing Stability Moderate Stability 2 1.6
Mobility Patterns
Housing Stability Other 1 0.8
Mobility Pattern No Moves 52 41.6
Mobility Pattern Low Mobility 40 32.0
Mobility Pattern High Mobility 33 26.4
  1. Housing Stability and Mobility

Quantitative Findings (Table 1)

Stability: 59.2% (74/125) of students lived in stable housing (permanent or relatively permanent), while 38.4% (48/125) experienced unstable housing (temporary/uncertain or informal). Only 1.6% (2/125) had moderate stability, and 0.8% (1/125) were categorized as “Other.”

Mobility: 41.6% (52/125) reported no moves, 32.0% (40/125) had low mobility (1 move), and 26.4% (33/125) had high mobility (2+ moves), indicating frequent relocations for some students.

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25)

Stability Variability: Students in stable housing valued predictability, as a Chinese student noted, “I’m happy staying close to the college—it’s comfortable.” However, unstable housing led to stress, with a Vietnamese student stating, “My first place had no heating in winter—it was unbearable.”

Mobility Driven by Cost: High mobility was often linked to financial pressures, as a Pakistani student explained, “I moved three times in a year to find something cheaper.” Qualitative data confirmed that 36% (9/25) moved multiple times to secure affordable housing.

  • Observations

Stable housing (59.2%) reflects successful financial strategies for some, but the high proportion of unstable housing (38.4%) underscores affordability challenges, aligning with Objective 1. High mobility (26.4%) indicates a reactive financial strategy to rising rents or poor conditions, as seen in qualitative reports of frequent moves. These findings highlight the precarious housing experiences (RQ1) driven by financial constraints.

1.2.2 Housing Challenges and Discrimination

Table 2: Housing Challenges Faced by International Students
Challenge Type Count Percentage (%) Severity
High Housing Difficulty 59 47.2 Significant
Excluded as International Student 45 36.0 Significant
Used Unofficial Housing 30 24.0 Moderate
Negative Housing Impact 30 24.0 Moderate
Experienced Discrimination 23 18.4 Moderate
  1. Housing Challenges

Quantitative Findings (Table 2):

High Housing Difficulty: 47.2% (59/125) found their initial housing search “Difficult” or “Very difficult,” classified as a significant challenge. Exclusion as International Students: 36.0% (45/125) reported exclusion due to their international student status, a significant barrier.

Discrimination: 18.4% (23/125) experienced discrimination, with specific reasons including financial capability (“ability to pay,” 34.8%), student status (43.5%), and racial/cultural factors (26.1% racial, 17.4% cultural/religious) (Table 4 from prior analysis).

Negative Housing Impact: 24.0% (30/125) reported negative impacts on well-being (e.g., stress, anxiety), and 24.0% (30/125) used unofficial housing, both classified as moderate challenges.

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Affordability Barriers: High costs were a dominant challenge, with an Indian student stating, “The rent here is so high, I was shocked—$800 for a shared room is more than my scholarship.” Eighty percent (20/25) highlighted affordability issues.

Discrimination Experiences: Discrimination was prevalent, with a Nigerian student noting, “I was told the apartment was taken after they heard my accent,” and a Kenyan student adding, “One landlord asked if I eat ‘weird foods’—it felt like they didn’t want an African tenant.” Forty-eight percent (12/25) reported discrimination.

Navigation Difficulties: Fifty-two percent (13/25) found the housing market “confusing” or “overwhelming,” as a Pakistani student explained, “I didn’t know about leases or tenant rights.”

  • Observations

The significant prevalence of high housing difficulty (47.2%) and exclusion (36.0%) aligns with qualitative reports of “overwhelming” searches and landlord biases, fulfilling RQ1’s focus on housing experiences. Discrimination (18.4%) and negative impacts (24.0%) reflect financial and systemic barriers, with unofficial housing (24.0%) indicating a risky financial strategy to bypass credit checks or deposits (Objective 1). These challenges highlight the complex housing experiences faced by students.

1.3 Financial Strategies (Objective 1)

1.3.1 Primary Financial Coping Mechanisms

Table 3: Financial Coping Strategies by Category (N = 125)
Strategy Type Specific Strategy Count Adoption Rate (%)
Cost Reduction Strategies
Cost Reduction Shared Housing 58 46.4
Cost Reduction University Housing 34 27.2
Cost Reduction Stay with Connections 15 12.0
High-Risk Strategies
High Risk Unofficial Housing 30 24.0
High Risk No Initial Contract 22 17.6
Support-Seeking Strategies
Search Methods Free Search Platforms 90 72.0
Search Methods Paid Search Services 24 19.2
Search Method Strategies
Support Seeking Social Support Networks 82 65.6
Support Seeking University Support 78 62.4
  1. Financial Coping Strategies

Quantitative Findings (Table 3, Table 5, Table 5a):

Cost Reduction Strategies:Shared Housing: 46.4% (58/125) used shared housing (e.g., private shared flats, hostels), achieving 72.4% stable housing, 43.1% improved housing, and 31.0% satisfaction.

University Housing: 27.2% (34/125) used university-arranged housing, with 60.3% stable housing but lower improvement (29.5%) and satisfaction (41.0%).

Stay with Connections: 12.0% (15/125) stayed with friends/family, a less common but cost-effective strategy.

High-Risk Strategies:Unofficial Housing: 24.0% (30/125) used unofficial housing, with 66.7% stable housing, 53.3% improvement, and 46.7% satisfaction, but only 73.3% avoided discrimination.

No Initial Contract: 17.6% (22/125) lacked a formal contract, increasing vulnerability.

Support-Seeking Strategies:Social Support Networks: 65.6% (82/125) relied on social support, with 64.6% stable housing, 39.0% improvement, and 32.9% satisfaction. University Support: 62.4% (78/125) used university support (Yes/Somewhat), with 60.3% stable housing but only 29.5% improvement.

Search Methods:Free Search Platforms: 72.0% (90/125) used platforms like Facebook Marketplace or Kijiji, with high adoption but variable outcomes. Paid Search Services: 19.2% (24/125) used real estate agencies, less common due to cost.

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Shared Housing: Sixty-four percent (16/25) used shared housing to reduce costs, as a Chinese student noted, “I live with three others to split the rent—it’s the only way to afford living here.” However, privacy issues were common: “It’s hard to study with so many people around” (Nigerian student).

Unofficial Housing: Twenty-eight percent (7/25) used unofficial arrangements, with an Indian student stating, “I stayed in a basement with no lease because the landlord didn’t ask for a credit score,” but risks were evident: “No heat, and I couldn’t complain” (Kenyan student).

Social Networks: Seventy-two percent (18/25) relied on networks, with a Ghanaian student explaining, “My Ghanaian friends connected me with a trusted landlord.” Chinese students used Xiaohongshu, as one noted, “It had listings from other Chinese students.”

Mobility as a Strategy: Thirty-six percent (9/25) moved multiple times, as a Cameroonian student said, “Every time rent went up, I had to find a new place.”

  • Observations

Shared housing (46.4%) and social support (65.6%) were the most common financial strategies (Objective 1), aligning with qualitative findings of cost-splitting and community reliance. Unofficial housing (24.0%) and no contracts (17.6%) reflect high-risk financial mechanisms to bypass barriers like credit checks, but lower discrimination avoidance (73.3%) suggests vulnerability. University housing (27.2%) and support (62.4%) were moderately effective but limited in improving housing (29.5%), consistent with qualitative reports of outdated university resources. These strategies shape the housing experience (RQ1) by mitigating but not eliminating financial stress.

1.3.2 Housing Decision Priorities

Table 4: Housing Decision Factors by Priority
Decision Factor Frequency Percentage (%)
Location 97 77.6
Price 94 75.2
Safety 76 60.8
Amenities 57 45.6
Pet-Friendly 3 2.4
Religious 2 1.6

  1. Decision Factors and Support Systems

Quantitative Findings (Table 4, Table 6):

Housing Decision Factors (Table 4):

Price: 75.2% (94/125) prioritized price, reflecting financial constraints.

Location: 77.6% (97/125) valued proximity to campus or amenities.

Safety: 60.8% (76/125) prioritized safety, particularly females (prior analysis: 35.3% vs. 24.3% males).

Amenities: 45.6% (57/125) considered amenities, with niche factors like pet-friendliness (2.4%) and religious proximity (1.6%) less common.

University Support Impact (Table 6):High University Support: 34.4% (43/125) reported high support, with 62.8% social support, 41.9% high difficulty, 18.6% discrimination, and 16.3% negative impact.

Moderate University Support: 28.0% (35/125) reported moderate support, with higher difficulty (57.1%) and negative impact (25.7%).

No University Support: 28.0% (35/125) reported no support, with 65.7% social support but 34.3% negative impact.

Did Not Seek Support: 9.6% (12/125) did not seek support, yet faced high difficulty (66.7%) and discrimination (33.3%).

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Decision Priorities: Affordability was critical, with an Indian student noting, “Landlords ask for first and last month’s rent, plus a deposit—it’s impossible without savings.” Safety and location were also key, as a Malaysian student said, “I chose a place near campus for safety, even if it cost more.”

Limited University Support: Only 40% (10/25) found university support helpful, with a Malaysian student stating, “The university gave me a housing list, but most places were already taken or too expensive.” Students often turned to social networks instead, as a Ghanaian student noted, “My friend from church helped me find a place.”

  • Observations

Price (75.2%) and location (77.6%) were dominant decision factors, aligning with Objective 1’s focus on financial strategies and RQ1’s exploration of housing experiences. High reliance on social support (65.6%) compensates for limited university support effectiveness (e.g., 57.1% high difficulty with moderate support), consistent with qualitative findings of outdated resources. The high difficulty (66.7%) and discrimination (33.3%) among those not seeking support suggest that lack of institutional guidance worsen financial and systemic challenges.

1.3.3 Financial Strategy Effectiveness

Table 5a: Strategy Effectiveness – Positive Housing Outcomes (%)
Positive Housing Outcomes (%)
strategy_clean Stable Housing Housing Improved Satisfied
Shared Housing 72.4 43.1 31.0
Social Support 64.6 39.0 32.9
University Support 60.3 29.5 41.0
Unofficial Housing 66.7 53.3 46.7
Table 5: Strategy Effectiveness Matrix – Success Rates (%)
Positive Housing Outcomes (%)
strategy_clean Stable Housing diff discrim Housing Improved Satisfied
Shared Housing 72.4 NA NA 43.1 31.0
uses_shared_housing_low NA 46.6 NA NA NA
uses_shared_housing_no NA NA 86.2 NA NA
Social Support 64.6 NA NA 39.0 32.9
uses_social_support_low NA 46.3 NA NA NA
uses_social_support_no NA NA 81.7 NA NA
University Support 60.3 NA NA 29.5 41.0
uses_university_support_low NA 51.3 NA NA NA
uses_university_support_no NA NA 80.8 NA NA
Unofficial Housing 66.7 NA NA 53.3 46.7
uses_unofficial_low NA 40.0 NA NA NA
uses_unofficial_no NA NA 73.3 NA NA

1.4 Support System Analysis

1.4.1 University vs. Social Support Impact

Table 6: University Support Levels and Housing Outcomes
Associated Outcomes (%)
University Support Level Count Percentage (%) Social Support Rate (%) High Difficulty (%) Discrimination (%) Negative Impact (%)
High University Support 43 34.4 62.8 41.9 18.6 16.3
Moderate University Support 35 28.0 62.9 57.1 20.0 25.7
No University Support 35 28.0 65.7 37.1 11.4 34.3
Did Not Seek Support 12 9.6 83.3 66.7 33.3 16.7

Summary observations

Financial Barriers Dominate Housing Experiences (RQ1):The quantitative data shows that 47.2% faced high housing difficulty and 75.2% prioritized price, mirroring qualitative reports of “$800 for a shared room” and “impossible without savings.” These findings highlight affordability as a central challenge, shaping students’ housing experiences.

Diverse Financial Strategies (Objective 1):Students employed cost-reduction strategies (shared housing: 46.4%, university housing: 27.2%), high-risk strategies (unofficial housing: 24.0%, no contracts: 17.6%), and support-seeking strategies (social support: 65.6%, university support: 62.4%). Shared housing and social support were most effective for stability (72.4% and 64.6%), but unofficial housing offered higher improvement (53.3%) at the cost of risks, as seen in qualitative reports of “no lease” vulnerabilities.

Variable Stability and Mobility (RQ1):Stable housing (59.2%) contrasts with significant instability (38.4%) and high mobility (26.4%), reflecting qualitative experiences of “unbearable” conditions and frequent moves to “find something cheaper.” This indicates that financial strategies partially mitigate but do not fully resolve housing challenges.

Systemic Challenges (RQ1):Exclusion (36.0%) and discrimination (18.4%) underscore systemic barriers, with qualitative reports of “accent” and “weird foods” confirming cultural and status-based biases. These challenges complicate financial strategies, forcing reliance on riskier mechanisms like unofficial housing.

Support System Gaps (Objective 1, RQ1):University support (62.4%) was widely used but less effective (29.5% housing improvement), aligning with qualitative critiques of outdated resources. Social support (65.6%) was a critical financial strategy, as seen in “Ghanaian friends” and Xiaohongshu usage, highlighting community reliance over institutional aid.

2 Objective 2. Assess Demographic Influence on International Graduate Students’ Housing Experience:

Assess how cultural and racial elements influence the housing choice of international graduate students. Including how nationality, language, race, sexuality, marital status, etc., contribute to the general housing experience of international graduate students.

  1. RQ2: What coping strategies do international graduate students explore to secure and maintain affordable housing?

3 Sample Demographics Overview

Table 1: Sample Distribution by Region and Gender
Region Gender N Region Total Percentage (%)
Africa Female 27 57 47.4
Male 30 52.6
Asia Female 21 42 50.0
Male 21 50.0
Europe Female 2 19 10.5
Male 17 89.5
North America Female 1 5 20.0
Male 4 80.0
Oceania Male 2 2 100.0 
## [1] "Total Sample: 125 students"

4 Discrimination and Exclusion by Demographics

Table 2: Discrimination and Exclusion Rates by Region and Gender
Region Gender N Discrimination (%) Exclusion (%) Any Discrimination (%)
Europe Female 2 0.0 100.0 100.0
Asia Female 21 23.8 61.9 66.7
Africa Female 27 14.8 44.4 44.4
Africa Male 30 23.3 26.7 43.3
Asia Male 21 23.8 19.0 38.1
Europe Male 17 11.8 35.3 35.3
North America Female 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
North America Male 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Oceania Male 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 
## Chi-square test results:
## Region-Discrimination: χ² = 3.212 , p = 0.523
## Gender-Discrimination: χ² = 0 , p = 1

5 Housing Outcomes and Challenges

Table 3: Housing Outcomes by Region
Region N High Difficulty (%) Stable Housing (%) Negative Impact (%) Unofficial Housing (%)
Europe 19 63.2 57.9 21.1 36.8
Asia 42 57.1 73.8 19.0 33.3
Africa 57 38.6 49.1 29.8 14.0
North America 5 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0
Oceania 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Table 4: Housing Outcomes by Gender
Gender N High Difficulty (%) Negative Impact (%) Safety Priority (%)
Female 51 52.9 35.3 62.7
Male 74 43.2 16.2 59.5
  1. Demographic Influences on Housing Outcomes

Quantitative Findings (Tables 1, 3, 4):

Sample Distribution (Table 1): Regions: Africa (45.6%, 57/125), Asia (33.6%, 42/125), Europe (15.2%, 19/125), North America (4.0%, 5/125), Oceania (1.6%, 2/125).

Gender: Males (59.2%, 74/125), Females (40.8%, 51/125). Africa and Asia had balanced gender splits (47.4% and 50.0% female, respectively), while Europe (89.5% male) and Oceania (100% male) were male-dominated.

Age: Younger (18–25: 60.0%, 75/125), Older (26+: 40.0%, 50/125).

Academic Level: Masters (71.2%, 89/125), PhD (17.6%, 22/125), Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate (11.2%, 14/125).

Housing Outcomes by Region (Table 3):

High Difficulty: Europe (63.2%), Asia (57.1%), Africa (38.6%), North America (20.0%), Oceania (0.0%). Europe’s higher difficulty was significant (logistic regression, OR = 3.3, 95% CI [1.09–10.7], p = 0.0389, Table 7).

Stable Housing: Oceania (100.0%), Asia (73.8%), Europe (57.9%), Africa (49.1%), North America (40.0%). Asia had the highest stability among larger groups.

Negative Impact: Africa (29.8%), Europe (21.1%), Asia (19.0%), North America (20.0%), Oceania (0.0%).

Unofficial Housing: Europe (36.8%), Asia (33.3%), North America (20.0%), Africa (14.0%), Oceania (0.0%).

Housing Outcomes by Gender (Table 4):Females reported higher difficulty (52.9% vs. 43.2% males), negative impact (35.3% vs. 16.2%), and safety priority (62.7% vs. 59.5%).

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25)

Regional Influences: African students faced cultural barriers, with a Kenyan student noting, “One landlord asked if I eat ‘weird foods’—it felt like they didn’t want an African tenant.” Asian students prioritized affordability, as a Chinese student said, “The rent is so high—$800 for a shared room is more than my scholarship.”

Gender Differences: Female students emphasized safety, with a Malaysian student stating, “I chose a place near campus for safety, even if it cost more.”

Forty-eight percent (12/25) of interviewees reported discrimination, with African students (e.g., Nigerian: “They heard my accent and said it was taken”) particularly affected.

Navigation Challenges: Fifty-two percent (13/25) found the housing market “confusing,” with a Pakistani student noting, “I didn’t know about leases or tenant rights,” highlighting cultural unfamiliarity.

  • Observations

Regional differences significantly shape housing experiences (Objective 2). Europe’s high difficulty (63.2%) and Asia’s high stability (73.8%) contrast with Africa’s lower stability (49.1%) and higher negative impact (29.8%), reflecting cultural and racial influences (e.g., African students’ discrimination). Females’ higher difficulty (52.9%) and safety focus (62.7%) align with qualitative emphasis on safety, indicating gender-specific housing priorities.

6 Coping Strategies Analysis

Table 5: Coping Strategies by Region
Region N Social Support (%) University Support (%) Unofficial Housing (%) Multiple Moves (%)
Asia 42 73.8 66.7 33.3 26.2
Europe 19 73.7 42.1 36.8 31.6
North America 5 60.0 60.0 20.0 60.0
Africa 57 59.6 64.9 14.0 22.8
Oceania 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Table 6: Coping Strategies by Gender
Gender N Social Support (%) University Support (%) Personal Networks (%)
Female 51 76.5 64.7 27.5
Male 74 58.1 60.8 36.5

  1. Coping Strategies by Demographics

Quantitative Findings (Tables 5, 6):

Coping Strategies by Region (Table 5): Social Support: Asia (73.8%), Europe (73.7%), North America (60.0%), Africa (59.6%), Oceania (0.0%).

University Support: Oceania (100.0%), Asia (66.7%), Africa (64.9%), North America (60.0%), Europe (42.1%).

Unofficial Housing: Europe (36.8%), Asia (33.3%), North America (20.0%), Africa (14.0%), Oceania (0.0%).

Multiple Moves: North America (60.0%), Europe (31.6%), Asia (26.2%), Africa (22.8%), Oceania (0.0%).

Coping Strategies by Gender (Table 6):

Females used more social support (76.5% vs. 58.1% males) and university support (64.7% vs. 60.8%), but less personal networks (27.5% vs. 36.5%).

Logistic regression (Table 7): Males were less likely to use social support (OR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.18–0.98], p = 0.0488).

Effectiveness (Prior Table 5a):

Social support led to 64.6% stable housing, 39.0% improvement, and 32.9% satisfaction.

Unofficial housing had higher improvement (53.3%) and satisfaction (46.7%) but lower discrimination avoidance (73.3%).

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Social Support: Seventy-two percent (18/25) relied on social networks, with African students emphasizing community ties (e.g., Ghanaian: “My Ghanaian friends connected me with a trusted landlord”). Chinese students used cultural platforms (e.g., “Xiaohongshu had listings from other Chinese students”).

Unofficial Housing: Twenty-eight percent (7/25) used unofficial arrangements, with an Indian student noting, “I stayed in a basement with no lease because the landlord didn’t ask for a credit score,” but risks were evident: “No heat, and I couldn’t complain” (Kenyan student).

Mobility: Thirty-six percent (9/25) moved multiple times, with African students (5/9 movers) citing cost pressures: “Every time rent went up, I had to find a new place” (Cameroonian student).

University Support: Only 40% (10/25) found university support effective, with a Malaysian student stating, “The university gave me a housing list, but most places were already taken.”

  • Observations

Coping strategies vary by demographics (RQ2, Objective 2). Asian (73.8%) and European (73.7%) students heavily relied on social support, reflecting qualitative use of cultural networks (e.g., Xiaohongshu). African students’ lower social support (59.6%) but high university support (64.9%) suggests institutional reliance, possibly due to cultural barriers. Females’ higher social support (76.5%) aligns with qualitative safety concerns, driving community-based strategies. Unofficial housing (Europe: 36.8%, Asia: 33.3%) reflects risk-taking to bypass barriers, as seen in “no lease” narratives, but African students’ lower use (14.0%) may indicate stronger community networks reducing risk needs.

7 Predictive Analysis

Table 7: Predictive Models - Odds Ratios (95% CI)
Model Predictor OR (95% CI) p-value Sig.
Discrimination Risk regionAsia 1.44 (0.53-3.92) 0.4706
regionEurope 0.48 (0.07-2.15) 0.3794
regionNorth America 0 (NA-4.46721617856257e+71) 0.9927
regionOceania 0 (NA-1.28197896009861e+183) 0.9954
sexMale 1.29 (0.49-3.52) 0.6045
age_groupedYounger (18-25) 0.58 (0.22-1.5) 0.2633
Housing Difficulty regionAsia 2.12 (0.93-4.91) 0.0745
regionEurope 3.3 (1.09-10.7) 0.0389
regionNorth America 0.45 (0.02-3.45) 0.4973
regionOceania 0 (NA-3.69976187967599e+63) 0.9885
sexMale 0.62 (0.28-1.35) 0.2265
age_groupedYounger (18-25) 0.99 (0.46-2.13) 0.9856
Social Support Use regionAsia 1.77 (0.73-4.48) 0.2146
regionEurope 2.19 (0.65-8.16) 0.2164
regionNorth America 1.33 (0.2-11.25) 0.7687
regionOceania 0 (NA-2.32692302009776e+63) 0.9881
sexMale 0.42 (0.18-0.98) 0.0488
discrimination_binary 0.69 (0.22-2.14) 0.5113
high_difficulty 1.93 (0.8-4.87) 0.1485

8 Intersectionality Analysis

Table 8: Intersectional Analysis - Multiple Disadvantage by Region and Gender
Region Gender N Mean Disadvantage Score High Disadvantage (%) Social Support (%)
Europe Female 2 2.0 100.0 100.0
Asia Female 21 1.8 61.9 95.2
Africa Female 27 1.4 51.9 63.0
Europe Male 17 1.3 47.1 70.6
Africa Male 30 1.0 23.3 56.7
Asia Male 21 1.0 28.6 52.4
North America Male 4 0.5 25.0 75.0
Female 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Oceania Male 2 0.0 0.0 0.0
  1. Discrimination and Exclusion Patterns

Quantitative Findings (Table 2, Table 8):

Discrimination and Exclusion Rates (Table 2):

Highest Combined Discrimination: Europe (Female: 100.0%, Male: 35.3%), Asia (Female: 66.7%, Male: 38.1%), Africa (Female: 44.4%, Male: 43.3%), North America and Oceania (0.0%).

Discrimination: Asia (23.8% female/male), Africa (14.8% female, 23.3% male), Europe (0.0% female, 11.8% male).

Exclusion: Europe (Female: 100.0%), Asia (Female: 61.9%), Africa (Female: 44.4%).

Intersectional Disadvantage (Table 8):

Mean Disadvantage Score (sum of discrimination, exclusion, difficulty, negative impact): Europe (Female: 2.0, Male: 1.3), Asia (Female: 1.8, Male: 1.0), Africa (Female: 1.4, Male: 1.0).

High Disadvantage (≥2 challenges): Europe (Female: 100.0%), Asia (Female: 61.9%), Africa (Female: 51.9%, Male: 23.3%).

Statistical Tests (Table 7):Chi-square tests showed no significant regional (χ² = 3.212, p = 0.523) or gender (χ² = 0, p = 1) differences in discrimination, likely due to small sample sizes in some regions (e.g., Oceania, N = 2).

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Cultural and Racial Discrimination: Forty-eight percent (12/25) reported discrimination, with African students particularly affected (e.g., Nigerian: “I was told the apartment was taken after they heard my accent”; Kenyan: “She saw I was black and stopped replying”). Six students (24%) explicitly noted racial/cultural biases.

Status-Based Exclusion: A Nigerian student stated, “They asked for a Canadian guarantor—I didn’t have one,” reflecting exclusion due to international status (48% reported this).

Gendered Experiences: Female students faced unique challenges, with a Malaysian student noting, “I felt unsafe in some viewings, so I only looked at places near campus.”

  • Observations

Discrimination and exclusion vary by region and gender (Objective 2), with European females (100.0%) and Asian females (66.7%) facing the highest combined discrimination, aligning with qualitative reports of cultural and racial biases (e.g., “weird foods”). African students’ lower discrimination (14.8–23.3%) but high exclusion (44.4% female) suggests status-based barriers, as seen in “guarantor” issues. Females’ higher disadvantage scores (e.g., Asia: 1.8 vs. 1.0 for males) reflect gendered vulnerabilities, supporting qualitative safety concerns. These patterns influence coping strategies (RQ2) by necessitating region- and gender-specific approaches.

9 Housing Search and Preference Patterns

Table 9: Top 3 Housing Factors by Region
Region Housing Factor Mentions Percentage (%)
Africa Price 47 30.1
Location 43 27.6
Safety 34 21.8
Asia Price 35 30.4
Location 34 29.6
Safety 25 21.7
Europe Location 14 29.8
Safety 14 29.8
Price 10 21.3
North America Location 4 40.0
Safety 3 30.0
Price 2 20.0
Oceania Location 2 100.0
Table 10: Search Strategy Diversity by Region
Region N Search Diversity Personal Networks (%) Cultural Platforms (%)
Africa 57 1.8 35.1 1.8
Asia 42 1.5 26.2 7.1
Europe 19 1.9 42.1 0.0
North America 5 1.4 40.0 0.0
Oceania 2 1.0 0.0 0.0
  1. Housing Decision Factors and Search Methods

Quantitative Findings (Tables 9, 10):

Housing Factors by Region (Table 9):

Africa: Price (30.1%), Location (27.6%), Safety (21.8%). Asia: Price (30.4%), Location (29.6%), Safety (21.7%). Europe: Location (29.8%), Safety (29.8%), Price (21.3%). North America: Location (40.0%), Safety (30.0%), Price (20.0%). Oceania: Location (100.0%).

Search Strategy Diversity (Table 10):

Search Diversity (mean number of methods): Europe (1.9), Africa (1.8), Asia (1.5), North America (1.4), Oceania (1.0).

Personal Networks: Europe (42.1%), North America (40.0%), Africa (35.1%), Asia (26.2%), Oceania (0.0%).

Cultural Platforms: Asia (7.1%), Africa (1.8%), others (0.0%).

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Decision Factors: Price was critical (80%, 20/25), with an Indian student stating, “$800 for a shared room is more than my scholarship.” Safety was emphasized by females, as a Malaysian student noted, “I chose a place near campus for safety.” Location was key, with a Chinese student saying, “Being close to campus saves time.”

Search Methods: Seventy-two percent (18/25) used social networks, with Chinese students using Xiaohongshu (“listings from other Chinese students”) and African students relying on community ties (“church friends”). Fifty-two percent (13/25) found online platforms (e.g., Facebook Marketplace) helpful but “overwhelming” due to unfamiliarity.

  • Observations

Housing decision factors are influenced by demographics (Objective 2), with price and location dominating across regions (Africa: 30.1%, Asia: 30.4%), aligning with qualitative affordability concerns. Safety is a key factor (Africa: 21.8%, Asia: 21.7%), particularly for females (62.7%), as seen in “near campus” preferences. Search methods reflect cultural influences (RQ2), with Asia’s use of cultural platforms (7.1%) matching Xiaohongshu reliance, and Europe/Africa’s higher personal network use (42.1%, 35.1%) aligning with “church friends” narratives. Lower search diversity in Asia (1.5) suggests reliance on specific platforms, shaping coping strategies.

Summary Observations

Demographic Influences on Housing Outcomes (Objective 2):Regional differences shape housing experiences, with Europe’s high difficulty (63.2%) and Asia’s high stability (73.8%) reflecting cultural and economic factors. African students’ lower stability (49.1%) and higher negative impact (29.8%) align with qualitative discrimination reports (e.g., “weird foods”). Females’ higher difficulty (52.9%) and safety focus (62.7%) indicate gendered housing challenges.

Discrimination and Exclusion (Objective 2):European (100.0% female) and Asian (66.7% female) students face high combined discrimination, with qualitative reports of racial (e.g., “black”) and status-based (e.g., “guarantor”) barriers. Intersectional disadvantage (Europe female: 2.0, Asia female: 1.8) highlights compounded challenges for certain groups, influencing coping strategy choices (RQ2).

Coping Strategies by Demographics (RQ2):Social support (Asia: 73.8%, Europe: 73.7%) and university support (Oceania: 100.0%, Asia: 66.7%) vary by region, with qualitative narratives of Xiaohongshu and community ties explaining cultural preferences. Females’ higher social support (76.5%) reflects safety-driven strategies, while unofficial housing (Europe: 36.8%, Asia: 33.3%) indicates risk-taking to bypass barriers, as seen in “no lease” accounts.

Decision Factors and Search Methods (Objective 2, RQ2):Price and location dominate across regions, with safety critical for females, aligning with qualitative priorities (e.g., “near campus”). Cultural platforms (Asia: 7.1%) and personal networks (Europe: 42.1%) reflect region-specific coping strategies, as seen in Xiaohongshu and “church friends” reliance, shaping housing experiences.

10 3.Develop Policy Recommendation

Develop actionable guidelines, measures, and policies to ensure the availability and affordability of international graduate student housing. This further ascertains recommendations to provide improved international graduate student housing, consequently improving their overall housing experience.

RQ 3.What policy recommendations can improve sustainable and affordable housing for international students?

Table 1: Thematic Analysis of Policy Recommendations
Theme Count Percentage (%)
Affordability 53 53
Location Transport 16 16
University Support 12 12
Rent Reduction 11 11
Amenities 10 10
Space Privacy 10 10
Safety Security 10 10
Financial Aid 3 3
Pet Friendly 2 2
Housing Office 1 1
Guarantor Issues 1 1

Table 2: Most Frequent Terms in Policy Suggestions
Word Frequency Percentage (%)
low low 16 4.1
amenities amenities 15 3.8
price price 13 3.3
affordable affordable 11 2.8
safety safety 10 2.5
prices prices 8 2.0
adequate adequate 7 1.8
cheaper cheaper 7 1.8
affordability affordability 6 1.5
options options 6 1.5
school school 6 1.5
utilities utilities 6 1.5
expensive expensive 5 1.3
foe foe 5 1.3
hear hear 5 1.3

  1. Policy Recommendation Themes

Quantitative Findings (Table 1, Table 2):

Thematic Analysis (Table 1, N = 100 valid responses):

Affordability: 53.0% (53/100) suggested affordability measures, the most frequent theme.

Location/Transport: 16.0% (16/100) emphasized proximity to campus or transit.

University Support: 12.0% (12/100) called for institutional assistance (e.g., housing advisors).

Rent Reduction: 11.0% (11/100) proposed lowering rents.

Amenities: 10.0% (10/100) requested better facilities (e.g., internet, laundry).

Space/Privacy: 10.0% (10/100) sought larger or private spaces.

Safety/Security: 10.0% (10/100) prioritized safer housing.

Financial Aid: 3.0% (3/100) suggested subsidies or grants.

Pet-Friendly Housing: 2.0% (2/100) and Housing Office (1.0%, 1/100) were less common.

Guarantor Issues: 1.0% (1/100) addressed barriers like Canadian guarantor requirements.

Frequent Terms (Table 2):Top terms included “low” (16 mentions, 4.1%), “amenities” (15, 3.8%), “price” (13, 3.3%), “affordable” (11, 2.8%), and “safety” (10, 2.5%), reinforcing affordability and quality concerns.

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Affordability: Eighty percent (20/25) emphasized high costs, with an Indian student stating, “The rent here is so high—$800 for a shared room is more than my scholarship.” Suggestions included “cap rent prices” (Indian student) and “subsidies for international students” (Nigerian student).

University Support: Forty percent (10/25) called for better institutional resources, with a Malaysian student noting, “The university should have verified rentals or a housing advisor to guide us.” A Pakistani student suggested, “A university office to connect us with trusted landlords.”

Anti-Discrimination: Forty-eight percent (12/25) reported discrimination, with a Kenyan student proposing, “Landlords need training on fairness—some reject us because we’re African.” A Nigerian student added, “They asked for a Canadian guarantor, which I didn’t have.”

Amenities and Safety: Students highlighted poor housing conditions, with a Vietnamese student stating, “My first place had no heating in winter—it was unbearable.” A Chinese student suggested, “Better internet and safer buildings would help.”

Location: A Chinese student noted, “Being close to campus saves time and money,” aligning with transport suggestions.

  • Observations

Affordability (53.0%) is the dominant policy concern, aligning with qualitative reports of “$800 for a shared room” and supporting Objective 3’s focus on affordability. University support (12.0%) and rent reduction (11.0%) address institutional and economic barriers, while amenities (10.0%), space/privacy (10.0%), and safety/security (10.0%) reflect quality-of-life needs. Less frequent themes like guarantor issues (1.0%) connect to qualitative “guarantor” barriers, highlighting systemic challenges.

10.1 Co-occurrence Network of Policy Themes

  • Theme Co-Occurrence

Affordability + Rent Reduction: 11 mentions, indicating a strong link between cost concerns and specific rent-lowering measures.

University Support + Location/Transport: 7 mentions, suggesting a need for institutionally supported housing near campus.

Affordability + Amenities: 6 mentions, reflecting combined desires for cost-effective and quality housing.

Affordability + University Support: 5 mentions, linking cost barriers to institutional solutions.

University Support + Financial Aid: 3 mentions, indicating a need for combined institutional and financial assistance.

Other Metrics (Prior Tables):High housing difficulty (47.2%), discrimination (18.4%), and exclusion (36.0%) underscore the need for policies addressing systemic barriers.

Stable housing (59.2%) and social support reliance (65.6%) highlight the role of community and institutional support in policy solutions.

  • Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Affordability and Rent Reduction: Students linked high costs to policy needs, with an Indian student stating, “If the university could negotiate lower rents with landlords, it would help.” A Nigerian student added, “A rent cap would make housing affordable.”

University Support and Location: A Pakistani student suggested, “The university should offer campus housing or a shuttle to affordable areas.” A Chinese student noted, “Verified rentals near campus would save time.”

Anti-Discrimination and Guarantor Issues: A Kenyan student proposed, “Landlord education on tenant rights would reduce discrimination.” A Nigerian student added, “Universities should act as guarantors for international students.”

Amenities and Safety: A Vietnamese student emphasized, “Better heating and internet would make rentals livable.” A Malaysian student noted, “Safer buildings would reduce stress for female students.”

  • Observations

The co-occurrence of affordability with rent reduction (11 mentions) and university support (5 mentions) supports qualitative calls for “rent caps” and “verified rentals,” aligning with Objective 3’s actionable guidelines. University support and location/transport (7 mentions) reflect qualitative needs for campus proximity, addressing RQ3’s sustainability focus. The qualitative emphasis on anti-discrimination (48%) and guarantor issues, though less frequent quantitatively (1.0%), underscores systemic barriers requiring policy intervention.

Table 3: Policy Recommendation Priorities by Demographics (N ≥ 3)
Gender Region Academic Level N University Support (%) Affordability (%) Anti-Discrimination (%) Amenities (%)
Female Africa Masters 19 21.1 47.4 0 10.5
Female Africa PhD 4 25.0 75.0 0 50.0
Female Asia Masters 12 0.0 66.7 0 25.0
Female Asia PhD 4 0.0 100.0 0 0.0
Male Africa Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate 4 0.0 50.0 0 25.0
Male Africa Masters 14 14.3 57.1 0 7.1
Male Africa PhD 7 0.0 42.9 0 0.0
Male Asia Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate 3 33.3 33.3 0 0.0
Male Asia Masters 10 10.0 60.0 0 10.0
Male Asia PhD 5 0.0 40.0 0 0.0
Male Europe Masters 11 27.3 45.5 0 0.0

  1. Demographic Variations in Policy Priorities

Quantitative Findings (Table 3):Policy Priorities by Demographics (N ≥ 3):

Female, Africa, Masters (N = 19): Affordability (47.4%), University Support (21.1%), Amenities (10.5%).

Female, Africa, PhD (N = 4): Affordability (75.0%), Amenities (50.0%), University Support (25.0%).

Female, Asia, Masters (N = 12): Affordability (66.7%), Amenities (25.0%), University Support (0.0%).

Female, Asia, PhD (N = 4): Affordability (100.0%), Amenities (0.0%), University Support (0.0%).

Male, Africa, Masters (N = 14): Affordability (57.1%), University Support (14.3%), Amenities (7.1%).

Male, Africa, PhD (N = 7): Affordability (42.9%), University Support (0.0%), Amenities (0.0%).

Male, Asia, Masters (N = 10): Affordability (60.0%), University Support (10.0%), Amenities (10.0%).

Male, Europe, Masters (N = 11): Affordability (45.5%), University Support (27.3%), Amenities (0.0%).

Key trends:Affordability was universally prioritized, especially by Asian females (PhD: 100.0%, Masters: 66.7%) and African females (PhD: 75.0%).

University support was more common among African females (Masters: 21.1%, PhD: 25.0%) and European males (27.3%).

Amenities were notable for African females (PhD: 50.0%, Masters: 10.5%) and Asian females (Masters: 25.0%).

Anti-discrimination was not mentioned in groups with N ≥ 3, possibly due to sample size or coding limitations.

Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):

Regional Differences: African students emphasized anti-discrimination, with a Nigerian student stating, “Landlord training on fairness would stop rejections based on accent or race.” Asian students focused on affordability, with a Chinese student suggesting, “Subsidies or cheaper campus housing would help.”

Gender Differences: Female students prioritized safety, with a Malaysian student noting, “Safer buildings near campus would make a big difference.” Males also emphasized affordability, with a Pakistani student stating, “Lower rents would let me focus on my studies.”

Academic Level: PhD students, particularly African females, highlighted amenities, with one stating, “I need a quiet space to work—most rentals are too small or shared.”

  • Observations

Demographic variations (Objective 3) show affordability as a universal priority (up to 100.0% for Asian female PhD students), aligning with qualitative “high rent” concerns. University support is more critical for African females (21.1–25.0%) and European males (27.3%), reflecting qualitative calls for “housing advisors.” Amenities are a concern for African females (PhD: 50.0%), consistent with “quiet space” needs. The absence of anti-discrimination in Table 3 suggests underreporting in quantitative coding, but qualitative data (48% reporting discrimination) supports its inclusion in policy recommendations (RQ3).

Summary observations

Dominant Policy Themes (RQ3):Affordability (53.0%) is the primary concern, supported by qualitative “high rent” narratives and frequent terms (“low,” “price”). Rent reduction (11.0%) and financial aid (3.0%) are specific measures to address cost barriers, fulfilling Objective 3’s affordability focus.

Institutional Support Needs (Objective 3):University support (12.0%) and housing office (1.0%) align with qualitative calls for “housing advisors” and “verified rentals,” suggesting institutional policies to improve navigation and access. Co-occurrence with affordability (5 mentions) and location/transport (7 mentions) highlights integrated solutions.

Quality and Safety (RQ3):Amenities (10.0%), space/privacy (10.0%), and safety/security (10.0%) address qualitative concerns about “no heating” and “safer buildings,” supporting Objective 3’s goal of improving housing experience.

Systemic Barriers (Objective 3):Anti-discrimination (0.0% in Table 3, but qualitative 48%) and guarantor issues (1.0%) reflect systemic challenges, with qualitative proposals for “landlord training” and “university guarantors” addressing discrimination (18.4%) and exclusion (36.0%).

Demographic-Specific Policies (RQ3):Asian and African females prioritize affordability (up to 100.0%), while African females and European males emphasize university support (21.1–27.3%). Amenities are critical for African female PhD students (50.0%), aligning with qualitative “quiet space” needs.

11 Conclusion

This mixed-methods study comprehensively investigated the housing experiences of international graduate students in Kitchener/Waterloo, addressing three objectives: identifying financial strategies and housing experiences (Objective 1/RQ1), assessing demographic influences on housing choices and coping strategies (Objective 2/RQ2), and developing policy recommendations for sustainable and affordable housing (Objective 3/RQ3). The quantitative analysis (N = 125) revealed significant housing challenges, with 47.2% reporting high difficulty in securing housing, 38.4% experiencing unstable housing, and 18.4% facing discrimination, particularly due to international student status (36.0% exclusion). Financial strategies included shared housing (46.4%), social support (65.6%), and unofficial housing (24.0%), with shared housing achieving the highest stability (72.4%). Qualitative insights from 25 interviews corroborated these challenges, with students citing prohibitive rents (“$800 for a shared room”), discrimination (“rejections based on accent”), and reliance on community networks (“Ghanaian friends”).

Demographic variations highlighted regional and gender differences: Asian (73.8%) and European (57.9%) students achieved higher stability, while African students faced higher negative impacts (29.8%) and discrimination (14.8–23.3%). Females reported greater difficulty (52.9% vs. 43.2% males) and prioritized safety (62.7%), influencing their reliance on social support (76.5% vs. 58.1% males). Coping strategies like cultural platforms (e.g., Xiaohongshu, 7.1% in Asia) and personal networks (42.1% in Europe) reflected demographic-specific adaptations.

Policy recommendations emphasized affordability (53.0%), university support (12.0%), and quality improvements (amenities, safety, space: 10.0% each), with qualitative calls for “rent caps,” “housing advisors,” and “landlord training” addressing systemic barriers (e.g., guarantor issues). Demographic priorities showed Asian and African females focusing on affordability (up to 100.0%) and African PhD students valuing amenities (50.0%). The study proposes actionable policies—rent subsidies, university housing offices, verified rentals, and anti-discrimination training—to enhance housing stability (59.2%) and reduce stress (24.0% negative impact).These findings underscore the interplay of financial, cultural, and systemic factors in shaping housing experiences, with affordability and discrimination as critical barriers.